Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

"Boris says Britons can turn the tide in 12 WEEKS" famous quote deleted

@DeFacto: you reverted Boris Johnson's famous, well-known and often requoted remark, where he wrongly predicted in March that he would "send coronavirus packing in this country" in 12 weeks. You reverted because in your view the quote was:

  • "cherry-picked" - all quotes are selected; this is no reason to revert. It was selected because of its historic importance.
  • "out-of-context" - the article is on the pandemic; the reader would understand that; this is no reason to revert
  • "of a speculative opinion" - you imply that Boris Johnson was speculating; I would say that Johnson had been advised by Sage and other scientific / medical advisers, and therefore his remarks were much more than speculation. Even it was speculation it is worthy of inclusion in an article where thousands of deaths followed. Whether the person speculated, was educated, informed or misinformed is not a criteria when quoting Prime Ministers.
  • "it didn't turn out that way" - whether a person was correct or incorrect is not a criteria when quoting Prime Ministers.

Lastly, the quote is neutral; these are his words alone. To delete such a notable faux pas could be seen as political bias. The reader has the right to know what the UK Prime Minister thought and said at a certain point in a timeline of events of such importance as a pandemic. The quote has been re-quoted over and over, and this enforces the importance and notability of his remarks. I referenced msn which was published exactly 12 weeks after he made these remarks, and which refers to and evaluates his remarks. This confirms their historical importance and notability, as do the fact that they have been quoted globally by a multitude of newspapers and media. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

DeFacto, the only cited source we need is a reliable one that carries the full quote, which is what should be used. I think if the quote is used in the article we could all agree that the full version is used? For comparison; the full quote is "I think, looking at it all, that we can turn the tide within the next 12 weeks and I’m absolutely confident that we can send coronavirus packing in this country. But only if we all take the steps that we’ve outlined – that is vital." , while the reverted shortened version is "I do think looking at it all we can turn the tide within the next 12 weeks... and send coronavirus packing in this country" . Incidentally, I agree with you about over-citing, in the wider context. Arcturus (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Llywelyn2000, according to the references given, what he actually said was "I think, looking at it all, that we can turn the tide within the next 12 weeks and I’m absolutely confident that we can send coronavirus packing in this country. But only if we all take the steps that we’ve outlined – that is vital."[1] So the problem is that certain parts of the quote were cherry-picked and and other parts were omitted from what was added to the article. This resulted in an out-of-context and selectively edited misrepresentation of what was said. To neutrally portray it as a "faux pas" would also require reliable source support and proof that all the qualifying conditions had been complied with.
The text I removed was indeed far from a neutral presentation of the facts. The readers have the right to be given all the context of quotes, and not fed a biased and selectively edited corruption of them.
Another thing: the addition was over-cited (which always raises a flag) and included a cite to the 'generally unreliable' Express. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
I accept your suggestion of the full quote: "I think, looking at it all, that we can turn the tide within the next 12 weeks and I’m absolutely confident that we can send coronavirus packing in this country." The second sentence, or the rest of his speech is superfluous. It is not for me to explain why the quote is a faux pas (your words); history explains that - the Coronavirus wasn't "sent packing" and Johnson was very wrong. That doesn't need to be said; the quote is sufficient. But I can list further references to confirm the notability of this historic quote should you wish.
The text you deleted was:
"I do think looking at it all we can turn the tide within the next 12 weeks... and send coronavirus packing in this country"
The full text (suggested by you) is:
"I think, looking at it all, that we can turn the tide within the next 12 weeks and I’m absolutely confident that we can send coronavirus packing in this country."
You say that my shortened version was not neutral. Of course it was neutral; the part left out ("and I’m absolutely confident that we can") does not make it more bias, and was done because of the over-cited tag. However, I accept your suggestion of the full quote.
Llywelyn2000 (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Llywelyn2000, I haven't suggested a replacement text, that's a false claim. I showed the full version of the quote that was misrepresented by selective editing. The sentence that followed it gives the full context of the first, and without it the first sentence on its own fails WP:NPOV because it fails to provide the context that its meaning relies on.
And no, "faux pas" were not 'my words', I put it in quotes because I was quoting from your original post where you wrote: "To delete such a notable faux pas could be seen as political bias." -- DeFacto (talk). 22:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion of the quote. this should not have been reverted; User:deFacto, an experienced user, should have added the whole sentence, rather than revert, as it merits inclusion. The references are sound. John Jones (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
    John Jones, please explain why you think I should have tried to make that biased and misleading interpretation worthy of inclusion rather than removing it per WP policy, and why you think a reference classified as 'generally unreliable' is "sound". -- DeFacto (talk). 22:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
    DeFacto You're accusing Llywelyn2000 of being 'biased and misleading' by leaving out the words "and I’m absolutely confident that we can" (see above). The finger points at you, not at Llywelyn2000! This are very serious accusations, and I, for one, would like a full explanation. If this is not forthcoming in the next few days then I'll seek an uninvolved admin to sanction your behaviour. Second, there were three references, which you should have been aware of before reverting someone's work. A positive, considerate editor would have added the full quote, not just revert; that would have been more in kin with the caring ethos of Wikipedia. John Jones (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
    John Jones, read what I wrote again - the words that were left out, and which render the addition as biased and misleading are "But only if we all take the steps that we’ve outlined – that is vital." That context is vital for readers to understand the first part of the quote. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support for the inclusion of as much of the full quote as possible. SpookiePuppy (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, let's just put the full quote in, with a suitable reference. Maybe Llywelyn2000 would like to do that? Any objections? Arcturus (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Arcturus, the two full sentences per your post of 22:13, 20 December 2020 above would be fine with me, and a single reliable source. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Alwyn for the link. I've now added the wording, as suggested by Arcturus and SpookiePuppy ('as much of the full quote as possible'), and preceded with BJ's full sentence, which includes the context of it all: "I wanted to say something today about the timescale of this campaign and where we're going and what we need to do, and I do think, looking at it all..." I hope this is in the spirit of the discussion. John Jones - life's too short to point fingers! The caravan moves on. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Llywelyn2000, we didn't agree that we needed the earlier bit, and as the reliable source (as opposed the the Express) didn't carry that, I removed it, leaving the two sentences per the above discussion and using just the RS from before. I also found a video of the speech itself, so replaced the cite to the video that only covered the press questioning afterwards with that. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
As I said, the first sentence is not essential, but does give the context. Secondly, DeFacto added '– that is vital'. This does not refer to the preceding sentence; I therefore will delete it. Take a look at the verbatim text here on www.gov.uk:
"I do think, looking at it all, that we can turn the tide within the next 12 weeks
And I am absolutely confident that we can send coronavirus packing in this country but only if we take the steps, we all take the steps we have outlined,
And that is vital because that is how we are going to reduce the peak..."
The audio on the video you added is terrible, and a better quality should be sought. A reference to the script would also be good.
As time passes, we will know what part of this quote will remain; if it will be a short phrases such as I am absolutely confident that we can send coronavirus packing, then the rest of the quote should be deleted. This quote is there for its historic value only, and not a synopsis of everything said in the 45 minute video of Johnson on that day. It does not need to be neutral! Its a quote as per WP:QUOTE: biased statements of opinion can be presented where there are good solid sources and I think that even DeFacto will agree that www.gov.uk is a good source. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Llywelyn2000, firstly, please realise that it is not my text that I inserted, but a verbatim reproduction of the quote in The Guardian, the cited reliable source. You've chosen to replace that quote from a secondary source with you're own interpretation of what was said from your reading of a primary source, and that is, basically, the definition of WP:OR.
Secondly, you seem to have misunderstood WP:NPOV. Sure we can discuss the attributed and sourced biased opinions of others in our articles, but we cannot selectively quote the words of others so as to misrepresent them by omitting important context, and not even if we can dig out a reliable source that is trying to do that. Our duty is to ensure the words of others are neutrally presented in Wikipedia. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

DeFacto - do note that 'transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research' (see WP:NOR). The Guardian had an obvious error. Editors have common sense; we can listen to the video recording you referenced and confirm that there was no break, no full stop after 'vital' (...and that is vital because that is how...). The www.gov.uk transcription was used to confirm that the extra bit added from the Guardian by you was incorrect.

I agree with you that we cannot selectively quote the words of others so as to misrepresent them by omitting important context; yet history will. You missed my point. All that remains of many long winded speeches are biased titbits, and if that's what the sources, the history books and, documentaries quote, then Wikipedia needs to reflect that historic fact.

After all is said and done, the truth is that you yourself, twice, tried to delete Boris' historical faux pas. The truth is that it wasn't in the Wikipedia article until I added it; and that political bias flows throughout this article, as others have shown. To use your own words: Our duty is to ensure the words of others are neutrally presented in Wikipedia. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Support the amended version (by Llywelyn2000), as it stands. Also agree that all that needs to be said, actually, is [Boris Johnson] claimed that we can turn the tide within the next 12 weeks and I’m absolutely confident that we can send coronavirus packing in this country. Internationally, that's the quote of the century. John Jones (talk) 09:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
    John Jones, so do you favour misrepresentation and disagree with Llywelyn2000's reassertion that "Our duty is to ensure the words of others are neutrally presented in Wikipedia"? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article is currently too long (over 75K prose) and so needs to be trimmed. The quote in question doesn't stand out as especially notable and it's too soon for the judgement of history – the sources supplied are effectively primary in nature. When I read that para, it just comes across as routine, aspirational rhetoric. As a reader, I'm much more interested in the other part of the paragraph -- about the de-classification as a "high consequence infectious disease". The article doesn't explain this issue and so I have to go to a site like Full Fact to establish that this means that it's not considered as deadly as Ebola, say. It's still not on the list, while the original SARS is. This is what readers want -- hard facts with clear explanations. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
    Andrew, thanks for your thoughts and valid opposition on this. I was the user who made the edit on 6 November adding the change in the status of COVID-19 in the UK (i.e. the virus no longer deemed a "HCID"). So I hold my hands up for not developing this! At the time, it took all my energy not to directly associate this surprising move with the first hint of lockdown with the closure of public venues the following day. The government (on specific advice) downgraded the status of the virus just a few days before restrictions began in earnest! When I saw the above (12 weeks) quote being used to extend the paragraph, I was pleased to see this as I felt it cast a slightly more critical eye on the move and at least provided some political context, but I have to admit we are probably sailing close-hauled to WP:NPOV. At the time I made the "HCID" edit, I was taken up with trying to ascertain when exactly SARS-CoV-2 was designated an HCID to start with. I spent over 3 hours searching and the best I could come up with was the month of January 2020 - I could not narrow it, so I could not make an entry for the January start date. However, I feel that we should keep our eyes peeled for this information and add it to the section of the chronology for January when we do eventually unearth the exact point in time, as I believe this is equally important. SpookiePuppy (talk) 14:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Andrew Davidson if the article is too long, can I suggest you copy paste most of it into the individual nations articles. Hard facts are what Prime Ministers say; if you don't like these facts is something else, but don't let your prejudiced get in the way of a neutral article. Regarding your sources supplied are effectively primary in nature: I've now added a CNN source from 20 December. The following recent sources also include the notorious quote by Boris and show that well after March, the world's biggest newspapers are still quoting him. This quote is historic.
Regarding the first part: I'll just separate into 2 if it's so confusing! John Jones (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2021

1. In para 6 under heading "April 2020: Lockdown continues", change "Office of National Statistics" to "Office for National Statistics" 2. In final para of article, change "Office of national statistics" to "Office for National Statistics" 80.192.82.8 (talk) 12:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done This is Paul (talk) 12:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Useful WP:RS

I just want to offer this helpful year-long summary to anyone working on improving this article. Keep up the good work. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Nick Moyes for bringing this to the attention of this talk page. This interactive chronology could prove useful in balancing up some of the narrative, especially if the page wanders away from WP:NPOV. SpookiePuppy (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

New subsections - Beds / NOIDS

Hello, should there be some mention of:

  • The reduction in the total number of available beds by 13,000 between December 2019 and November 2020: [2], within the context of lower than usual occupancy rates (64.3% in Q1 2020; 77% in Q2 2020): [3]? Perhaps under National health services response>Beds?
  • Also, does page 14 [4] suggest there were in total 85 cases of COVID-19 confirmed by the NHS in week 52 2020? How should this be reconciled with the statistics section? Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
The notifiable disease reports shows how many times a district/unitary authority notified PHE that it had an infectious disease, not how many confirmed cases they had. Bellowhead678 (talk) 11:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Empty graphs

In the statistics section, why are the first four graphs empty? I notice that the vertical axes appear coloured - is the data 'bunching' toward the left-hand side of the graphs for some reason, thus becoming indistinguishable from the vertical axes? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Empty graphs in an article - is it my browser/settings? PrimeHunter (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Articles for English counties

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19#Articles for English counties. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Timeline (especially September 2019)

Any chance the timeline can be changed / corrected; especially the following paragraph:

"In November 2020 it was reported that a 66-year-old had experienced symptoms shortly after returning from holiday in Italy in September 2019, and his 44-year-old daughter had experienced similar symptoms. Scientists had previously speculated about COVID-19 in Italy as early as September 2019.[60]"

According to the mainpage and good sources, the first cases weren't until October 2019 at the earliest. Quoting a source via a less than reputable source as The Sun holds no scientific knowledge and is just plain incorrect and misleading information. 2A00:23C8:4F16:6201:B9C0:7083:5778:C1B2 (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Add citations on the UK maps

Hi, can you cite ncovtrack.com on the 2 UK maps and add the reference on the reference list? Cheers. On that note, I own ncovtrack.com which is the place where 2 images come from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgek98 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

yellow tickY Partly done @Georgek98: Hi, your site is already cited as a source by the images, see the descriptions of File:UK_Coronavirus_Deaths_per_Local_Authority_as_of_the_20th_of_Jan_2021.png and File:UK_Coronavirus_Cases_per_Local_Authority_as_of_the_20th_of_Jan_2021.png (which you've contributed yourself, so should already be aware of that). I 've nevertheless added the reference directly in the article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you RandomCanadian!

ncovtrack maps are suspect

I've removed the two maps purportedly showing the number of cases and deaths by lower tier local authorities. It's highly misleading because the sizes of these authorities are so radically different. For example, Cornwall (11,582 cases) shows in a darker colour than Vale of Glamorgan (6,638 cases) or Swale (12,217). But that's because Cornwall has 573,299 population, Vale of Glamorgan only 133,754 and Swale 150K (so the stated rates/M are 20,203 and 49,629 and 81,316 resp). The same sources for Utlas looks entirely different and are possibly more usable. The figures look ok as cumulative totals but the key only shows some of the colours. Graphs like this should probably only show rates. Chris55 (talk) 12:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Chris55 The corresponding graphs available on the government covid data dashboard are well presented on an UTLA level, are done by rate, and are generally quite nice. They're released under the open government license 3 which to my understanding makes them eligible for use on wikipedia - It might be worthwhile including them? Findoslice (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
The reason I've never attempted to include them is simply copyright. The British government is generally rather fussy about that. However that page does say that it's published under the Open Government Licence, so maybe someone could do it. Wikimaps don't have the associated popups unfortunately. Chris55 (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Your claim regarding the maps is false. The maps did not show that the cases of Cornwall is higher than Wales. I disagree with your claim. The maps show the numbers in cumulative numbers and the website has an option to represent the information in rates. If you look at the website and click on the "1M" button, you will clearly see the rates. Don't make false claims without having a thorough proof. All data the website shows come from the government. Georgek98 (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Is the timeline section too long?

The timeline on this page is in a weird place at the moment, where it is long enough to dominate the page, but still much shorter (and in a better, prose style) than the granular "timeline of the covid-19 pandemic in the UK" article series.

It's at the point where I would consider spinning it off into its own History of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom-type article, and leaving an abbreviated version here, although I hesitate to do that because we already have the timeline articles.

Wonder what other people's perspectives are, because the section will only get longer, and I don't want to end up having to chop out large sections of prose history when the only other pages we have are the bullet-point timeline lists. Might a history page be a good idea? BlackholeWA (talk) 09:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Or it might be okay to leave the longer timeline section here - it's hard to judge the convention on all these new Covid pages. Anyone have opinions? BlackholeWA (talk) 09:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Whilst the pandemic is still very much a current event I think its probably in the best interest of the timeline to keep it here as moving it would probably lead to new developments not being added as quickly if at all and increase the number of fights about what is or isn't important enough to be kept in this article especially related to coverage of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. In the long term it may make sense to create some kind of 'history of' article so that editors with a specific interest in the subject have more room for discussing events in more detail and so that other topics talked about in this page such as bigger picture discussion of the effects of the pandemic don't get pushed out by rule changes in any given week. Llewee (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

"The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rishi Sunak forecast that lengthy restrictions would severely damage the UK economy,[20] worsen mental health and suicide rates,[21] and cause additional deaths due to isolation, delays and falling living standards. " - AFAIK wrt suicide this is only speculation, there's not yet been any evidence for higher suicide rates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:2449:E300:65C2:8EE5:729A:26B6 (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Graph data etc moved into Templates

For anyone who like me was somewhat alarmed to find a significant reduction in the size of this article's text today, you may be relieved to learn that the sections concerned have been transferred to templates, for example:

-HTH, Yadsalohcin (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

28, 60 days

The article only mentions 28 days, and yet the UK is also counting deaths from 60 days. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-data-idUSKBN29J2TH suggests this would add about another 10% to the figures. A note could be usefully made in the article. Also to explain excess deaths and that all cases on a death certificate mentioning corona are counted by the ONS. This means that deaths from non-corona related reasons are NOT counted in these figures. this is a myth that is suggested by the article as now written. So for example positive test and then 1 week later death due to a car accident has never and never would be counted as a corona related death. Of course excess deaths is useful to know as at a population level cancelled hospital appointments - say for cancer surgery which then lead to delay and death can be attributed to a pandemic effect, but would not be recorded on a death certificate. It would be good to include these other higher figures in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.30.115 (talk) 07:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Need template editor to add 'vaccinations' to 'pandemic' template

Since the United Kingdom has a vaccination programme, how would it be possible to add the number of doses administered in the infobox section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrBoy632 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

connor died of drugs leading to respiratory failure

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9218845/First-Briton-catch-Covid-26-drugs-died.html -might be worth adding to the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.30.115 (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2021

Add "The government introduced an "Eat Out to Help Out" scheme, announced on July 8, to offer 50% off food and non-alcoholic drinks up to £10 per person every Monday-Wednesday in August. 86.5.120.158 (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Asartea Talk | Contribs 14:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Overall graph of deaths - where?

Deaths from Covid and other causes in UK 2020,21 compared with average deaths

I've produced a graph showing the overall impact of Covid deaths on the death rate which seems to me a useful scene setter. It's taken from registration records and crucially these now distinguish deaths in which Covid was the main cause of death from those in which it was simply present (as determined by coroners). I've also included the same information for flu and pneumonia because this is a regular issue with conspiracy theorists, as well as the average from the previous 5 years.

But after 12 months the page is rather a mess. Most graphs were sloughed off to the Statistics page but have been replaced by sometimes worse graphs on this page; the timeline section is more like a journal than an encylopadia article but it's understandable that people want to chronicle this issue. I'm willing to help with reorganizing the page but we have to balance these two conflicting motives. In the meanwhile, where should I put this graph if anywhere? Chris55 (talk) 10:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi @User:Chris55, I could hardly agree more. At an early stage the page was a really valuable resource for the basic statistics and one could skip all the hyperbole and political point-scoring and incompetence of our 'leaders', and focus on the raw data to know what was going on. But as things have evolved, with the influence of denialists and minimisers the data I would deem important has become rather buried in a load of dross. Perhaps we need another 'sloughing off' effort, this time to remove the still much-too-detailed diary sections to another layer of summary elsewhere and replace it with a much more limited (100-word?) summary of 2020 up to the end of November on this page... and of course there's a need to update several sections which seemed so important when they started but which have not been either maintained of moth-balled with the progress of time.
So, as a first step, I would say that your graph is exactly what I would like to see on this page somewhere near the top of the 'Statistics' section (which itself also needs a significant facelift). It presents more clearly the information I was trying to get to with the graph at Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom#Comparison of 2020 (England and Wales) with average death rates and the 2014–15 flu season and needs to be (together with references for its sources) out there, bold and clear. Thanks for offering this! Yadsalohcin (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
I previously suggested moving the timeline as-is here to a History of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom article, and leaving an abbreviated summary in its place. I hesitate because the timeline articles already exist, although those are a bullet pointed record of granular events rather than a prose-style timeline. I definitely think the current timeline section should be maintained, whether here or at another page. Other editors seemed conflicted on the exact remedy. BlackholeWA (talk) 00:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Looking more closely, there are at least a dozen derivative timeline articles, if one includes England, Scotland, Wales & Ireland. And 20 derivative articles in all. So it's a major task. And whereas division by year is relatively straightforward, what goes in the UK page rather than a nation's page produces all sorts of complications. So I think the timeline section in this article needs to be drastically curtailed and kept as a pointer to the other articles.
I'd like to suggest that all day-by-day graphs be retired at this point, or pushed well down the tree of pages. Those who listen to the news regularly are probably fed up with the daily numbers and anything less than a weekly graph doesn't make sense at this point, given the huge differences at weekends. I respect the enormous amount of data in the template:COVID-19 pandemic data/United Kingdom medical cases chart, but the display didn't really work after the first 6 months. And the data it uses is often out of date on the day after publication and is "revised" regularly by the government. Personally I prefer the more considered data from the ONS and they have refined their counts of "due to" against "associated with" over the last year, but that only deals with deaths.
From the point of view of statistics, the UK figures are inevitably dominated by England which has nearly 83% of the population, but policy and incidents are rather different and the UK article ought to emphasise these. Chris55 (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
For my money, the statistics section of the page feels about right- continuing the daily graphs allows an instant overview of everything that's happened and what the latest is in relation to all that has been going on throughout the pandemic period... exceptions being that it would be good to have a ref for the vaccinations graph and it would be nice if the bar chart of 'New cases by day reported' could default to show the right hand end of the axis rather than the left! And certainly I'd like to see your summary graph of weekly deaths up there.
But the journal could certainly be summarised so the article would be significantly shorter.Yadsalohcin (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Before anyone summarizes the current timeline/history let's move it to its own prose history article, I really do think the current content is valuable, and the "Timeline" articles aren't really comparable as they are so itemized and don't convey a narrative. BlackholeWA (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Is yet another layer needed? In both accounts there is much ephemera "Matt Hancock announced last night that..." which is really insignificant a year later even if one wants to provide a full historical account. And the bullet points would be better fleshed out a little. Chris55 (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I think there are distinct needs for both styles. The bullet points are for granular developments including things like stat updates organized strictly by date. The paragraphs here give a narrative overview with headings and more discussion, including illustrations. Also, a History article would essentially be an abstraction to another page of the section here, which I think is how it should be considered rather than a summary in its place being considered a "shortening" of the current content. In its form on this page, the bullet points and the history have been able to coexist. BlackholeWA (talk) 12:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Yadsalohcin, the graph I was saying ought to be retired is the one at the start of the Timeline section. The graphic says nothing. The total number of cases is a piece of fiction, as it always has been, useful only at the first or second order derivative. The number of deaths is compromised by the daily publication deadline as well as the weekly variation, etc. That's why an overall graph such as I've suggested should be the lead. Even a graph of new cases since the start is seriously misleading because the proportion of cases tested now is an order of magnitude higher than it was at the beginning. Chris55 (talk) 11:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
In addition to the above problems with this template, the version on the Wikipedia app on iOS or Android shows the full table with no options to suppress it. This is currently approaching 400 lines and makes the article difficult to read. Chris55 (talk) 10:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
I share some concern for the amount of screen space occupied by the graphic in its default 15 days state. If it's misbehaving on some systems, it would be good to get that fixed; I can see that a 400-line scroll is far from ideal! And yes, its main use seems to me to be in allowing it to be expanded to show, say, a two-month time frame and investigate 2nd order differentials etc., but that does seem to me to be worthwhile. For example, at the moment, it tells a very valuable story albeit at a hopelessly wide-scale geographical level which is undoubtedly confused by the existence of much more local (and in some cases variant-specific) effects and trends. (Early on I found some very valuable databases at GitHub giving more detailed analysis by region, but I haven't been following that for a while). So in this instance, from the graphic I can see that just now the daily rate of growth of cases has come down over the last two months from ~2+% to ~0.2-% (but of course now, with the basic number so high, 0.15% still means 6,000+ new cases). So we can see the way things have been trending from the graphic... and the cases numbers are rather more up-to-the minute than weekly figures for deaths. I feel there might be a more efficient way of achieving this, but as yet I haven't stumbled upon or devised one. However, for completeness and consistency I'd like to see at least the data gathering for this graphic to continue.
Meanwhile, suitably referenced and explained, I'd love to see your weekly barchart somewhere near the start of the article, as that also tells a story- in this case immediate and without need for further effort- albeit with less up-to-the minute news... In my utopian world there is room for both of these elements. Yadsalohcin (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)#
PS having the medical cases chart graphic up there near the top of the article is consistent with most of the other COVID-19 national pages that I've seen, but if it is a REAL pain, one solution would to be to display it collapsed as default by slipping in a

<div class="wikitable mw-collapsible autocollapse" > before the {{COVID-19 pandemic data/United Kingdom medical cases chart}}{{anchor|COVID chart}}{{-}} then close the <div section with </div>

I tried a similar approach at the template page, but it seemed to hide the rest of the article...
or to avoid having to scroll past it we could move it to the foot of the article... but the preferred way would be to fix the way it displays in the mobile / Wikipedia app! HTH Yadsalohcin (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Chris, I've been keeping a similar graph based on the same data which was moved to the Statistics sub-page. I prefer the presentation of your version, though suggest adding 2020/2021 below your months for readability. I agree I think this article would be better served having summary data, not having all the daily cases etc. This will naturally transition as time goes on, and the reporting becomes more historical in nature. |→ Spaully ~talk~  12:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Spaully. Yes, in time the years might be important. But there are significant differences because your figures both for Covid and flu/pneumonia appear to be incidence figures (those who happen to have the disease at death) and the mortality figures are very different. For Covid it's pretty consistent at 91% whereas for flu/pneumonia it's only 18%. The ONS took some time to reanalyse all their data and produce figures which reflect the chief cause of death: they did an initial study in August and started doing it in real time at the end of last year. Of course the government use an even more ad hoc measure: those who've died with 28 days (or now more) of a Covid test. Also most of your figures appear to be for England & Wales only. Adding Scotland and N Ireland ups the figures some. (Unfortunately those two countries haven't reanalysed their flu/pneuomnia figures so I had to estimate those.) Chris55 (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
UK-wide is definitely preferable, but was not possible when I was researching it due to different reporting times and types of figures from Scotland/NI. That you've found a way to include them is great. I am a little concerned about estimating figures as for me that tends too close to original research, hence I have been sticking to regularly updated and transparent figures but I haven't looked in detail at the various figures out there for some time now. |→ Spaully ~talk~  20:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree there are inconsistencies, which would make a table difficult to achieve at the present time, but on a graph these differences are negligible. The graph raises some interesting questions which I have seen no discussion of anywhere, such as why the "other deaths" are substantially below normal since around November. Chris55 (talk) 13:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Demographics

I applaud editors of this article for including data such as "Coronavirus risk and ethnicity" and not including data such as "Coronavirus risk and gender". Otherwise, article might be contaminated by such inessential and misleading phrases: "In the UK, men made up 46% of diagnosed cases but almost 60% of deaths and 70% of admissions to intensive care units" (see https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/908434/Disparities_in_the_risk_and_outcomes_of_COVID_August_2020_update.pdf), but who cares about those toxic masculine men dying? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.5.70.252 (talk) 03:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Inquiry draft to be merged here

It has been suggested that Draft:Proposed COVID-19 inquiry in the United Kingdom, a draft I created, be merged into this article. I have merged a lot of its content into the page on the government's response to pandemic [5]. I hope it is not excessive on that page, and could do with experienced editors trimming down the information appropriately. Thank you --82.23.242.26 (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Please see this. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

What was planned for 21 June

"On 14 June, the proposed end of all restrictions on 'Freedom Day' (21 June)"

Uh, if I'm not mistaken, there was never a plan to end all restrictions on that date. Only the restrictions on social contact. We're yet to hear anything about when other things are hopefully going to end, for instance:

  • requirements to wear face coverings in certain settings
  • the NHS Test and Trace system
  • measures that businesses are required to have in place on their premises
  • restrictions on international travel

As such, I'm amending this and a few other instances. — Smjg (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC for refactoring of "Timeline" section

Should the timeline section be kept, refactored, or split into a new article? BlackholeWA (talk) 06:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The timeline section on this article is two months out of date now, and while I was regularly updating it before, I have held off as, as I see it, there's an open question regarding how the section should be handled. As has been pointed out, the timeline section is getting exceedingly long and is taking up much of the article. It seems likely that the content should be reduced significantly on this page. Normally I'd say it's an open-and-shut case for spinning the prose timeline content off into its own article, except in this case, three "timeline" articles already exist (e.g. Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United_Kingdom (January–June 2020)). However, these are bullet-pointed day-by-day records of minutia, whereas the timeline on this page is in a paragraph-formatted narrative style that I think is helpful in describing the "story" of the pandemic. As such I am unwilling to delete it all out of hand for a briefer summary, so I thought I'd ask editors here for comment.

As I see there are three, maybe four options for how to handle the timeline section:

  • Option 1: Status quo - We don't change anything, and keep the timeline section content on this page, with little modification to its current form.
  • Option 2: A new page - We keep the content of the current timeline section and spin it off into its own new page, potentially called something like History of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom. I personally think the prose style summary is different and useful enough from the bullet point timeline articles that such an additional page would be justified, but some editors might disagree.
  • Option 3: Major cutdown - We don't create any new pages, and rather remove the long timeline section from this article with a much smaller few-paragraph summary, nuking the current content.
    • Option 3.1: Compromise? - Another option might be to keep the general form of the current timeline section, but trim it at length such that it fits better in with the rest of the page, somewhere between options 1 and 3. But this might just be delaying the issue as the pandemic history continues to write itself.

Personally, I'm leaning towards Option 2, but I feel some people might find adding another page redundant given the current timeline pages. Personally I think that a prose "history" of the sort found in this article currently is useful and has a place on Wikipedia, but other editor opinions would be welcome, especially as not many people have been updating this section of the page of late. BlackholeWA (talk) 06:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Option 3.1. The timeline section in this article has WP:PROSELINE issues. This sometimes happens when we write encyclopedia articles about recent events. This is usually a sub-optimal style for prose, and it usually suggests that the prose needs to be condensed, and suggests that many of the dates should be removed. Condensing moves the focus from dates, to important ideas/concepts. In this particular case, I think the "timeline" section could possibly be renamed to history, and then the size of the section cut by about half. Just my two cents, feel free to disagree. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @BlackholeWA: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 2,700 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
    • @Redrose64: - I'm not overly worried about publicization through those channels, although if it's possible to retroactively add a statement manually, something like "should the timeline section be kept, refactored, or split into a new article?" could work. BlackholeWA (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 - We have to stop kidding ourselves into thinking that there will ever be brief and straightforward pages for Covid-related subjects. They will always be very long and detailed, through the very nature of their topic. As such, I would much rather have a handful of very large pages dealing with the topic, rather than arbitrarily dividing them into who knows how many pages that only cover a few months of the pandemic at a time. I'm sure there are ways to improve this page that don't include spinning yet another Covid-related article out of it. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - I objected to spitting the timeline into a new page in the past as I though it would be less up to date and cause arguments over what should be kept here. But as the pandemic draws to a close I think there is a fairly compelling argument for splitting the timeline into a new article so that it doesn't overwhelm this page whilst also insuring a full account of the events of the last year or so is preserved. Llewee (talk) 09:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Might need to figure out a way to get some more eyes on this RfC to get consensus on this, heh. BlackholeWA (talk) 11:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I've mentioned the discussion on the rest of the projects that this page is in the remit of to see if that gets it more attention. Llewee (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
    • May also be worthwhile putting some kind of notice at the top of the article at some point though that probably isn't appropriate right now as it isn't a clear splitting question at the minute. Llewee (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • option 2 per Llewee rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 - My opinion is that the timeline section should only describe major events and trends. That approach for this article would have 1 or 2 paragraphs for each current subsection of the timeline section, so 5-10 total paragraphs, and would make the article easier to update and maintain. Velayinosu (talk) 03:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree that as time passes the current format becomes inappropriate for this main article, so would support the content being split off into a History of... article, with a short summary remaining here. That I think best aligns with Option 2 though also has the effect of a significant cut down for this overall summary article. The key difference between options 2 & 3 above is whether the current content is kept anywhere, and I would argue it provides a more useful detailed summary to future readers than the individual timeline articles - this then forms a hierarchy of articles (Overall - History - Timeline). |→ Spaully ~talk~  09:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I've created a draft of a potential new article which can be seen here if anybody is interested. Llewee (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    • That looks good - pretty much what I imagined. The content itself will need some cleanup (the point about it being WP:PROSELINE stands), and the last two months will also need coverage, and we'll need to write a new shorter section in the main article here, but that looks like a promising starting point and I'd be totally on-board if that is where consensus falls. BlackholeWA (talk) 11:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
      Template:Excerpt works nicely for this kind of thing. Write a good lead for the new spinout article, then excerpt that article into the old article. It will display the lead of the new article in the old article, without any of the maintenance headaches of having to maintain similar content in two different articles. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2, but keep a ~three paragraph summary of the key points in this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Covid_19 related articles need to have all events and timelines well captured hence a good idea to split into a new page to ensure we have everything well documented without overwhelming the existing page.BristolTreeHouse (talk) 06:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3.1 or (or at least 3): (I'm quickly passing by) I am in favour of ensuring the current article is not overwhelmed. I'd note the UK is through Wave1 and at the tail of Wave2 and a radical idea is that those could both be static'sh hindsight articles. We have articles Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom (January–June 2020), Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom (July–December 2020), and Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom (2021) (albeit I'd prefer we were delineating by Wave1 and Wave2 (Wave 2 have two peaks). On the basis we already have at this instance sub article's I am in favour of option 3. I'd agree this article was in need of updating and the Hancock/JVT/Kanani briefing esp. JVT covered a lot of second wave key points, as well as 3rd wave prep.[6]. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I would now note that the UK has had waves 1 and 2 and is currently surfing along wave 3; and that would be a better split in my opinion and specific half years. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Fatality rate

I think there is an issue with the fatality rate of Delta variant for unvaccinated people. Although it's true it doesn't take into account the age and can make people believe that being unvaccinated is better. I think it's better if we separate the fatality rate for >50 and <50 yo HelenHIL (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Misspelling

I've fixed this and a couple other typos in that paragraph. Don't really see why this needs a talk page section? Archon 2488 (talk) 08:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Overlap with article for government response

Given someone has tagged the excessive length of this page, it seems to me that much of this article, particularly the lead, covers the government's response rather than the epidemiology of COVID-19 in the UK. Much of this could be potentially moved to the article for British government response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which needs considerable updates. The lead especially could better summarise the epidemiology, rather than the detailed description of the changes in policy, although I understand that this might be considered a central page for the pandemic in the UK. But see for example the pages for Covid USA and Covid India, which have been more clearly separated from United States responses to the COVID-19 pandemic and Indian government response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Welcome thoughts. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 10:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Bar Graphs, # of Cases, # of Deaths

Yesterday there was an area on this page that showed total cases and total deaths over the last 15 days by default, while also allowing quick access to past data, along with bar graphs showing recoveries and active cases. This was extremely useful information in an extremely convenient and concise presentation that is still available on many other COVID pages, for example Singapore and Israel, and is not available on the linked "statistics of the covid-19 pandemic in the united kingdom" page. Why was it removed from this one? Kinerd518 (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree with the above and would also like to know why it was removed. Jowaninpensans (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 cases

How many of the actual cases are vaxxed? The numbers of PHE show more vaxxed infected. - https://twitter.com/tlowdon/status/1461387155708661761 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.185.40.12 (talk) 10:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Article class

I think this should be a B class at the least, it seems well developed, and large enough? Erik Sergeant (talk) 14:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Potentially, but I think the "impacts" sections need to better summarise the relevant split-off articles. The lead is also disproportionately long given most of the content has been split off from here into other articles. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Case count

Hi @Asarlaí: - thanks for your edits to the lead. Could we discuss the reporting of case counts in the lead - as per this edit. I am not sure this is a particularly neutral way of describing the UK's high case count. The sources you provided do show the UK has a very high testing rate, but I don't think it's particular neutral to imply that the high case count is because of that alone - the UK has also had among the highest infection rates at various period of the pandemic. The first wave was among the world's largest, the alpha variant originated in the UK which further drove up case counts, and in mid-2021 the UK had a consistently high daily infection rate. As with all countries, deaths, and therefore cases, are still undercounted in the UK to a certain extent. The ranking of the UK among its region and worldwide is just a stated fact; there would need to be strong sourcing directly attributing the high testing rate and case numbers; other pages such as Covid India, Covid Malaysia and Covid USA do not do this, nor does Covid Europe. I welcome your or other editor's thoughts on this, but I disagree that it is misleading to state the ranking of cases without mentioning a lot of testing. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 11:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@Arcahaeoindris case counts are not directly comparable between nations for various reasons including count method, demography, population density, population distribution, testing regime, health service, and many others. Here's a BBC article describing the difficulties and why it's misleading to try to do so. However, if do we decide to continue doing it, we probably need to carefully caveat it with an explanation of why it is misleading to do so. -- DeFacto (talk). 00:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Arcahaeoindris, I didn't mean to imply that the high case count was because of the high testing alone. But I see now that it could be read that way, so thanks for pointing it out. One reason a smaller country like the UK records far more cases than the likes of South Africa or China is because its testing rate is many many times higher, but of course that's only one of the reasons for its case count. However, I think it should be mentioned in the first paragraph partly because of the huge disparity between countries. I think even the fact that a small country like the UK has such a high testing rate (one of the world's highest) is noteworthy in itself and worth mentioning in the lead. So I think a simple solution would be to move the sentence, so that it comes after the rankings. Like with the death-rankings/case-rankings, it would only be stating a fact without implying anything. ~Asarlaí 02:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks @Asarlaí:. I think having a sentence to mention it isn't a bad idea if there is strong support to include this, and a reliable source. I'd also suggest mentioning a timeframe for this/mentioning "as of XX" if this will be included, as the testing rate has changed/increased over time and certainly wasn't the world's highest in early 2020. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 14:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
i.e. see changes over time data here; UK's tests per population are in the top few but still lower than the UAE, Austria and Denmark. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
The lead already includes rankings for cases, deaths and death rates. I don't think these were put to a vote, so as long as it's consistent I don't think we need to wait for one before adding the testing rate also. But of course if there's any objections then we can discuss it further. The data comes from the same sources as the other rankings. You're right to point out that the testing rate has changed over time, like the death rate; although for testing rate the UK has consistently been among the top few countries since about January 2021. I agree that we should include "as of X date", like the others. ~Asarlaí 16:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Sure - that sounds ok to me. Feel free to add what you've suggested, maybe something like "since early 2021". If other editors have further comments can be discussed. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

The lead

The lead is being used as a convenient place to add new content and apparently to promote 'favourite' content. This is not what the lead is for.

WP:LEAD says:

  • The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. This is not the current case.
  • It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph. It currently is.
  • The average Wikipedia visit is a few minutes long. The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read. It gives the basics in a nutshell.... It currently does not.
  • It should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view. It currently is not.
  • The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It currently does not.
  • It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. It currently does not.
  • Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. It's currently laden with information that is not covered in the remainder of the article.

As a starting point to improve the lead, I moved the non-compliant content out of it into the "Background" section, with an explanatory edit summary explaining this: per WP:LEAD, the lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not the correct location for stuff not already covered elsewhere in the article, so I've moved this into the background section. There it can be tidied up and the lead used, per the guidelines, for a summary of the article.

However, Asarlaí quickly restored it all, with this edit summary: cutting the lead down to one line goes against the MOS, and moving it all into "Background" makes no sense; I've reinstated the lead and added anything missing to the main body; please remember BRD.

I propose moving the current lead content back to the "Background" section, and then deleting duplicated stuff from it or re-distributing it from there to other sections if appropriate, and then carefully constructing a new compliant lead per WP:LEAD. What do we think? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Good plan. – Wire723 (talk) 19:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
I've had a crack at it, and have dispersed otherwise uncovered content from the lead and re-written a first-pass of the lead as a concise summary of the important points in the article. But there is clearly a lot more to be done. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
@DeFacto: I had not responded to this proposal as you have not specified what your issues with the longstanding lead section were, other than just "it does not". Could you please elaborate on what your specific issues are and justify your explanations, and then it might be easier to respond to this suggestion. Your only specific issue relates to international comparisons, which I will respond to below.
Why not attempt to make improvements to the longstanding one? I hope that you will consider restoring the previous lead until this can be discussed in more detail, as per WP:BRD. I would argue the main issue is that it overlaps too closely with British government response to the COVID-19 pandemic (admittedly more of an overall issue of the article), rather than discussing the epidemiology of COVID-19 in the UK and introducing broad impacts and key issues. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 11:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I have been WP:BOLD and restored a part of the old lead, as well as added some relevant links to the new part, and actually on second thought think that in its current state, now more closely following the typical structure of other COVID country articles, it is a major improvement and better summarises the article. Happy to discuss the merit of international comparisons below, but think its current state is an adequate compromise. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 11:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_8&oldid=1164977516"